Religion v Science

One of the problems religion has is that it tries to make itself compatible with science.

But religion should be a view of the world which is utterly different from that of science.

The religious view should be content to be metaphorical, intuitive, revelatory, inspired, a deeply-felt insight into the nature of things.

For religion is metaphysical not physical – it deals with ideas beyond the ability of science to understand – science cannot sensibly ask the religionist for proof of his insights, and the religionist should not try to offer such proofs.

Religion should be like music or literature – for it moves for no empirical reason, yet it can move deeply the whole of a person’s being.

The religionist should seek to unite himself with the absolute – he may be on a fool’s errand but his faith is such that he is prepared to take that risk. Science can give him nothing for that pilgrimage.

All that the religionist should know is that he knows for certain next to nothing – in the words of St Paul:

…whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away… For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.